The peaceful coexistence of two trademarks for a certain period does not necessarily mean that they can continue to coexist across every market segment. This is the central issue in the recent dispute between Parfums Christian Dior and Sincerely Jules, a brand founded by influencer Juliana Sariñana.
In May 2026, Dior filed an opposition before the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board (TTAB), the administrative tribunal of the United States Patent and Trademark Office, challenging an application to register the SINCERELY JULES trademark for cosmetics and perfumery products. The application covers, among other goods, fragrances, foundation, lipstick, mascara, eyeshadow, nail polish, and bronzers.
Dior bases its opposition on its prior JULES trademark, registered in the United States for perfumes, colognes, and related products. According to the company, the mark has been used for more than 40 years and is fully incorporated into the expression SINCERELY JULES. Given the proximity between the goods covered by the respective marks, Dior argues that consumers could mistakenly believe that there is an association, collaboration, or economic connection between the companies. The opposition, filed under proceeding No. 91307331, remains pending before the TTAB.
Sincerely Jules, in turn, argues that the marks create distinct commercial impressions, that the marketplace already includes several marks containing the term “Jules,” and that the companies have coexisted for years without any reported instances of actual confusion. Founded in 2009 as a personal style blog, Sincerely Jules has since evolved into a lifestyle brand operating in areas such as apparel, e-commerce, publishing, jewelry, and handbags.
It is precisely the brand’s expansion into the beauty market that makes the case particularly relevant. Dior did not challenge Sincerely Jules’ earlier trademark registrations covering fashion and accessories. It only took action when the brand sought protection for cosmetics and fragrances—goods that are directly related to those covered by Dior’s JULES trademark.
The dispute illustrates that trademark coexistence is inherently contextual. The absence of confusion while two companies operate in sufficiently distinct sectors does not, in itself, eliminate the possibility of conflict when one of them enters a new product category. In such circumstances, the analysis must consider not only the similarity between the marks, but also the relationship between the goods, the proximity of their sales channels, the profile of the relevant consumers, and whether the public might perceive the new business activity as a natural extension of the earlier brand.
Although the case is being examined under U.S. law, the discussion has a clear parallel in the Brazilian legal system. Article 124, item XIX, of the Brazilian Industrial Property Law prohibits the registration of a reproduction or imitation—even when accompanied by additional elements—of a prior trademark covering identical, similar, or related goods or services, whenever there is a likelihood of confusion or association. Trademark protection therefore does not depend exclusively on the class in which the marks are registered, but also on the commercial circumstances in which they are used.
The case also offers an important strategic lesson: trademark clearance searches should not be treated as a measure limited to a brand’s initial launch. Every expansion into a new product line should be preceded by a fresh assessment of the relevant trademark landscape. A name that is available for apparel may encounter significant obstacles when used for cosmetics, food, technology, or any other sector in which potentially conflicting prior rights already exist.
With no decision on the merits yet, the dispute between Dior and Sincerely Jules highlights the limits of trademark coexistence and reinforces that the growth of a brand requires legal planning as careful as its business strategy. After all, expanding a business also means entering new trademark territory—and the boundaries there may be entirely different.
—
Author: Marília de Oliveira Fogaça, Thaís de Kássia R. Almeida Penteado, and Cesar Peduti Filho, Peduti Advogados.
Source: Dior, Sincerely Jules Trademark Clash Tests the Limits of Coexistence + https://www.thefashionlaw.com/dior-sincerely-jules-trademark-clash-tests-the-limits-of-coexistence/
—
“If you want to learn more about this topic, contact the author or the managing partner, Dr. Cesar Peduti Filho.”